I understand PS has this, but have never used it. Is it actually useful and, if so, possible to implement in Qimage? I suspect a lot less is out of gamut then people think, and this would prove it one way or another.edit- I'd be just as happy to see the image outline on the CIE color diagram as highlights on the actual image, if that's easier.

You mentioned in your first post on this subject that PS has the feature. I watched a video demonstrating the Lightroom version and the tool it has to modify colours so they are within the gamut of the Printer/paper being used. That seemed a total waste of time to me - that's what printing Colour Management does - adjusts the colours so they are in gamut. You choose the Rendering intent and that is all.If you the follow the Adobe route, for any image printed on a different printer/paper combination, a new version of the image is required.I have never found soft proofing particularly useful. I am aware that because a double conversion, (monitor & printer), is required some accuracy is lost.I have good profiles and a high quality calibrated monitor and find, particularly with matte & fine art papers, soft proofing and now the QU gamut check is pessimistic compared to the actual print. The gamut check appears to show significant loss of shadow detail and soft proofing shows too much loss of contrast.I stick to a limited range of papers and know what to expect, top results with semi gloss paper and some loss of contrast and saturation with matte and fine art paper.Terry

I have never found soft proofing particularly useful. I am aware that because a double conversion, (monitor & printer), is required some accuracy is lost.I have good profiles and a high quality calibrated monitor and find, particularly with matte & fine art papers, soft proofing and now the QU gamut check is pessimistic compared to the actual print. The gamut check appears to show significant loss of shadow detail and soft proofing shows too much loss of contrast.I stick to a limited range of papers and know what to expect, top results with semi gloss paper and some loss of contrast and saturation with matte and fine art paper.Terry

I agree with Terry completely.Just wanted to add a point that I think is significant.For may many many, years I had Epson Printers, using Epson paper primarily.According to expectations, the matte paper was wishy washy. That means, the blacks never got really black, and the colors were wishy washy....When my last Epson went to the big gamut in the sky, I took advantage of a perticularly great sale, and bought a Canon Pro 100.I started buying Canon paper which included a cheap matte (MP101) and a good matte (PM 101 (Premium matte). I was going to dismiss the paper (came in a sampler pack) based on matte experience with Epson. Oh well free paper. I'll try it. Holy Moley Batman. The prints jump off the page.So I learned that the paper makes a great difference in gamut. The blacks are deep and rich again.

The question with gamut warning is similar to soft proofing: "What do I do with this information?"

I think in rare cases where you see an issue in print, you could use gamut warning to see if the problem is related to the color gamut. If, for example, you print a sunset and discover that the print looks good except a small area of blue sky that looks too purple in print. Upon checking the gamut warning, you discover that the area in question is out of gamut: the color management engine picked the closest color it could render which happened to be a bit more purple.

In a case like that, you might try perceptual intent for that particular image to see if it improves the color of the sky. You could get creative and desaturate the blues a bit in Qimage's editor but as I pointed out, I rarely ever find the need. And as Terry pointed out, it's usually best to leave out of gamut colors up to the color management engine because it is designed for those situations: to fool the eye into thinking the printer can reproduce colors that it can't.

FWIW, I use a Canon PRO-100 and factory ink. Not sure what it's capable of printing in terms of color map, but it's certainly well known that using matte paper is going to kill the blacks and limit the range. I mostly use Red River UltraPro Gloss 2.0 and their supplied profiles. Monitor is a Viewsonic VP-2468 that isn't wide gamut, just sRGB and a maybe tad more. Calibration by eye. Camera is my antique Nikon D200.

I haven't typically shot raw, but am trying to do more. I'd like to use the larger color spaces, but I'm just a babe in the woods with that. It may be a fools errand; the reality is that a properly handled jpeg does everything I need most of the time. What I did find is I seem to be capable of processing images to have significantly out of gamut colors, even if they started out OK. Some things I shoot at work with colored plastic stock boxes and flash are also just wildly out of gamut. I think the information from the gamut warning is useful for choosing the rendering intent for a given image. Soft proofing works quite well for me, though in all honesty I usually just hit the print icon and am happy.

Anyway, I'm very happy to have the feature, though I hope it doesn't cause more questions and instill more fear than it's worth. Certainly a page of explanation would be useful, emphasizing that what it shows isn't always trouble and gets handled in the rendering process.

I'd be concerned about that , even with a modest sRGB monitor, a proper monitor profile made with a calibration instrument (eg. X-rite Eye One Display) is a good idea. Otherwise the soft proofing will not be correct.

Quote

haven't typically shot raw, but am trying to do more.

With jpeg images, much of the original data from the camera is discarded so working with raw will give better colour and contrast.QU has an excellent raw refine feature. The interface is unusual, unique even with minimum sliders where relevant areas of the image are selected with a rectangle to tweak the exposure etc.if the smart auto processing needs it. The image editor is also very good too for final refinements. Give it a go, there are help videos available.Terry

Already doing it, and I'm finding much of my editing is moving out of my editing program, and into Qimage. It's just a heck of a program.

My philosophy on the monitor is probably too casual, but I put priority on the printer. If everything is correct, the various reference images on the 'net will print beautifully. And they do. If the monitor displays the correct grey-scale, and looks like those printed images color-wise, I'm happy. And it does! My environment around the monitor is uncontrolled and varies a lot, so I don't know how much I'd gain from doing an instrumented calibration.

In many ways that is the right approach. Using colour managed printing with a good profile will give you the "correct" colours. A monitor is calibrated so its version of the image looks like the print, NOT the other way round.Terry